Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors split on soliciting department‑head rankings for strategic priorities; engineer updates on timekeeping and hiring
Summary
Board debated whether to ask department heads to rank draft strategic goals (A–K), with some supervisors urging inclusion and others preferring to proceed with the consultant’s process; the county engineer also reported a web‑based timekeeper pilot, open recruitment for equipment roles and the 2026 budget amendment draft.
A substantive debate over how to finalize the county’s strategic priorities occupied a sizable portion of the meeting as supervisors considered whether to solicit a simple ‘top five’ ranking from department heads.
One supervisor urged sending the A–K goals to department heads and collecting their top five priorities by email to better inform the board’s decision. Other members pushed back, saying the strategic planning process is intended to be a longer, deliberative effort and that Upland/Upper Florland’s compiled survey already reflected aggregated input. The board discussed practical timing (end‑of‑day, Friday or after a staff meeting) and whether the deliverable from the consultant would be biased if only a few department heads responded; no formal change to the consultant timeline was recorded during the meeting.
County engineer updates The county engineer provided several operational updates: the county resubmitted a 2026 BUILD grant on Feb. 24, 2026 after not being a finalist for a prior 205 build grant; staff are interviewing two applicants for a mechanic position and have advertised openings for equipment operator and summer technical help; and an in‑house web‑based timekeeper system is being piloted to replace paper timesheets, though staff noted legal/privacy (HIPAA) and administrator responsibilities remain to be clarified.
Why it matters: how the board sets its strategic priorities will guide budget and project decisions. Soliciting department‑head input would broaden participation in priority‑setting but could extend timelines; the engineer’s operational updates indicate a near‑term focus on staffing and process improvements.
Next steps: supervisors did not reach a formal decision to change the consultant’s deadline; one supervisor said they would attempt to collect department‑head input if the board did not agree. The engineer’s office will continue hiring work and pilot the timekeeper system with follow‑up on legal and administrative issues.
